<p><a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/6/101819/4311[/url]”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/6/101819/4311</a></p>
<p>More laughable proof that blogs in general, and Daily KOS in particular are pure and unadulterated garbage.</p>
<p>All this time we’ve been told by the Kos Kids that they are the true champions of free speech but now we know what they really believe: Speak freely except when Bill Clinton objects.</p>
<p>Although it’s not really surprising, why isn’t the ACLU anywhere to be found. For that matter why aren’t the other networks denouncing the behavior of the Clinton lackeys. </p>
<p>People notice these things…the left is trying once again as it does so well in most venues to stifle free speech. Stalin would be proud.</p>
<p>Pt911 makes Michael Moore look like a sober, deeply grounded researcher. A lot of the founding comes from Milton Scaife, one consultant from the FBI quit in disgust over the total disregard for the truth. It’s a smear. By convention, the smeared have a right to respond. The lies as reported in this piece are damnable and egregrious. See you in the court of public opinion.</p>
<p>
The same reason why NOW continued to support Bill Clinton and never called for a serious investigation of the serious allegations of assault by several women. Organizations like these are diodes (consult your nearest EE for the meaning of this).</p>
<p>You guys must really be scared if you’re attacking KOS. Not many tricks left in the bag,eh?</p>
<p>I would love to see browninfall’s SCOTUS brief about how criticism and dollar voting are actually a grave violation of the 1st Amendment. Oh, the horrors of democracy and capitalism! :)</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with dissent; where it gets highly questionable, however, is when members of Congress make veiled threats about broadcasting licenses.</p>
<p>Reagan movie, anyone?</p>
<p>Still waiting for the ACLU. Anyone heard from them yet?</p>
<p>One problem is that we don’t really know what’s in this docudrama and that’s the problem with prior restraint. When you act out of ignorance, you are much more likely to make a mistake.</p>
<p>However, in fairness, I don’t think the producers should include highly inflammatory and fictitious scenes that will make people believe something happened that didn’t. Dramatic license is fine in order to convey a point, but not if a reasonable person would believe a highly prejudicial and material fiction really occurred. Having said that, I object strenuously to letting the government prevent this or anything else from airing unless it’s banned for national security or other lawful reasons. Even the Reagan mini-series aired on another network. </p>
<p>Here are some things that I would consider: </p>
<p>
I don’t care very much what Clinton or Bush did before 9/11 when America treated terrorism as a criminal event, not an act of war. We had good reasons for that but 9/11 changed everything. I am interested in whether Clinton “wagged the dog” when it came to his national security responsibilities but I don’t blame him for not focusing his entire Presidency on eliminating bin Laden and al Qaeda, nor do I blame Bush for taking the same approach prior to 9/11.</p>
<p>If, on the other hand, the producers have a basis for believing that this event (or a reasonably similar event) occurred, then it should air as written. To prevent it from airing would be prior restraint and that’s a road I don’t think we want to walk down.</p>
<p>Probably the individuals who had words put into their mouths have a valid complaint. However, the notions that the docudrama are meant to convey - that the Clinton administration did not do all that it could have - are probably correct. The CIA chief of the bin Laden unit at that time maintains that there were at least 10 occurrences where we could have gotten him if we had wanted to. Although hindsight in this matter, just as the Iraq situation, is always better than extemporaneous thinking, so I’m not necessarily going to be critical of the Clinton administration.</p>
<p><a href=“http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/defamatory-sandy-berger-scene-in-911.html[/url]”>http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/defamatory-sandy-berger-scene-in-911.html</a></p>
<p>snip: We are 1 hour 54 minutes into the film, it is the culmination of the entire first two hours of the film. CIA agents on the ground with Commander Massoud have found bin Laden. They have him pin-pointed in a house. They are looking at the house with binoculars. They are on the phone with the CIA, that has patched in Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Berger, like a bumbling ass, sits there, looking every which way, refusing to give them clearance to grab bin Laden who is in their literal grasp. The woman at the CIA has to lecture Berger about how intelligence works, like he’s some kind of moron. Berger literally looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He’s clueless, an idiot, a moron, unfit to serve in any public office - hell, I wouldn’t hire the guy to mow my lawn. After a very long pause, the agents are begging Berger to take some responsibility, stop being such a wuss, stop trying to cover his chicken-**** ass, you see Berger reach forward and the phone line goes dead. Clearly Berger has ended the call. Osama gets away. And Sandy Berger is personally responsible for killing 3,000 Americans and bringing down the World Trade Center twin towers.</p>
<p>Not only is this scene FAR MORE defamatory than any review I’ve seen to date, this is THE KEY SCENE of the entire first half of the movie. You can’t cut it, or a good portion of the movie just makes no sense. But Disney/ABC can’t leave the scene is because it simply did not happen. **CIA agents weren’t on the ground, they weren’t with Massoud, nobody had bin Laden in their grasp, and Berger never refused to give the order to get the guy.<a href=“My%20emphasis%20added.”>/b</a></p>
<p>The entire culmination of the first half of the show is one big fat lie. This isn’t just a small scene with a small error. It’s THE scene and it NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Indefensible.</p>
<p>In contrast, Bush himself has testily said that the’s not concerned about OBL.
And then there’s the whole Tora Bora screw up.</p>
<p>Film is so very powerful. I got caught in a trap when I watched an Australian TV docudrama this past Friday about Mary somebody who seemed like the greatest woman that ever escaped from the Red Coats. The problem was when I researched her life after watching the film, I realized it was all B.S. At the beginning it said “based on a true story.” Yeah!!! I won’t be trapped in that emotional sand lot again.</p>
<p>I am back to reading books and “carefully & critically” watching the Beeb, BBC. I do get some CBS and ABC but it is not very good TV.</p>
<p>Intereting that when Moore’s movie came out no one wanted it banned or yanked off the air no matter how ridiculous it was, yet when this ridiculous movie comes out Bill Clinton is rushing in with his lawyers.</p>
<p>Michael Moore’s movie was not “on the air”. It was and still is a film you have to pay to see. Most of the people that saw it were probably predisposed to his “point of view” to begin with which is what the piece was - more like an editorial as opposed to a documentary. The ABC 911 drama is not the same - it reaches a far wider audience and many of them will not be able to discern between fact and fiction.</p>
<p>Definitely, Moore’s film was an opinion piece. A far cry from a tv drama based on “facts.” Most people unfortunately aren’t trained to discern fact and fiction. I work with students & these skills and I was taken in as I described above. I knew to research afterwards which I did and felt the idiot! </p>
<p>This ABC thing is so political. I am glad scholastic pulled their lesson plans and supplemented them with lessons on how to accurately judge media events. If we can use this as such a learning experience then we will all be the wiser.</p>
<p>Moore’s film was supposed to be a documentary. The facts he uses in his film are incorrect sorta like this film. Also the reason that was in the theatres and this is on tv is because of the productiuon company. ABC has the means to play it on TV, whoever produced Moores film doesnt. The fct remains that both films were ridiculous and 9/11 was allowed to play. ALOT of people used moore’s claims “as facts”. This just shows that liberals are for free speech unless they are being attacked, wether fairly or unfairly</p>
<p>Well somebody correct me if I’m wrong but different rules apply to material that is broadcast on network TV vs. films shown in a movie theatre or even cable television so let’s just keep the comparisons equal here.</p>
<p>What is wrong with you liberals. Freedom of speech only applies to you rite? Network TV is not very different from fictional movies categorized as documentaries. Why should you have a rite to shut down something an independant network is airing because you do not like that it is not true.</p>